I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

Our Lord loves them and desires their salvation, and it is not for us to say that God cannot work salvation wherever He so choses. However, the Orthodox Church alone is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, it alone is the Ark of Salvation, it alone is the Body of Christ, of which we become members through participation in the Eucharist, and it alone possesses the fullness of faith and the 'tools' necessary for salvation.

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

The bolded bit above sounds entirely Orthodox. Has anyone seriously told you otherwise? The thing that would concern me is your use propitiation rather than expiation. The latter is to do with removing sin the former more an offering to God (which does sound somewhat heretical). My own suggestion, and I hope others here will correct me if I err, is that if you stick to expiation and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection defeats death you'll be fine. I'd avoid the term propitiation, however. Despite the fact that some Orthodox rail against everything apparently western (even often when you can the same thing in the east) you shouldn't necessarily take what they say as true. I was one of them about a decade ago (converts sometimes go a bit off the deep end) and I was wrong. Juridical metaphors are fine - it's crystallising those metaphors into dogma such that God becomes some tyrant demanding blood for satisfaction that is wrong (and that's plagued western Christianity).

James

« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 04:00:45 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

What does the juridical metaphor "look like" from an Orthodox standpoint? I'm trying to see if my mind is still in error and influenced by Calvinist/Protestant influences.

The "wrath of God" is clearly in Holy Scripture but I believe the Reformers inaccurately required Christ to pay the penalty of God's wrath. Instead, would it be the consensus of the fathers to say that the "wrath of God" is directed towards sin itself? Sin being error, sin being what prohibits us from communing with Him, and sin being death itself ("wages of sin is death")?

As an aside, I believe the difference in Christ dying *instead of us* vs. *for us/for our sins* is what is throwing me off. When I first heard the distinction I only saw the same phrase stated twice. But in my readings it appears the crux of the difference is did Christ suffer the Father's penalty instead of us, or did Christ remove a barrier that separated us communing with the Father?

Thanks to both posters above, I appreciate your comments and understanding.

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

The bolded bit above sounds entirely Orthodox. Has anyone seriously told you otherwise? The thing that would concern me is your use propitiation rather than expiation. The latter is to do with removing sin the former more an offering to God (which does sound somewhat heretical). My own suggestion, and I hope others here will correct me if I err, is that if you stick to expiation and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection defeats death you'll be fine. I'd avoid the term propitiation, however. Despite the fact that some Orthodox rail against everything apparently western (even often when you can the same thing in the east) you shouldn't necessarily take what they say as true. I was one of them about a decade ago (converts sometimes go a bit off the deep end) and I was wrong. Juridical metaphors are fine - it's crystallising those metaphors into dogma such that God becomes some tyrant demanding blood for satisfaction that is wrong (and that's plagued western Christianity).

James

That will prove difficult. See Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 in the King James Version, and add Hebrews 2:17 in the New King James Version.

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

The bolded bit above sounds entirely Orthodox. Has anyone seriously told you otherwise? The thing that would concern me is your use propitiation rather than expiation. The latter is to do with removing sin the former more an offering to God (which does sound somewhat heretical). My own suggestion, and I hope others here will correct me if I err, is that if you stick to expiation and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection defeats death you'll be fine. I'd avoid the term propitiation, however. Despite the fact that some Orthodox rail against everything apparently western (even often when you can the same thing in the east) you shouldn't necessarily take what they say as true. I was one of them about a decade ago (converts sometimes go a bit off the deep end) and I was wrong. Juridical metaphors are fine - it's crystallising those metaphors into dogma such that God becomes some tyrant demanding blood for satisfaction that is wrong (and that's plagued western Christianity).

James

That will prove difficult. See Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 in the King James Version, and add Hebrews 2:17 in the New King James Version.

Not in the slightest. Pointing out to me that Protestant English translations of the Bible use the term is hardly relevant - finding the term in the KJV doesn't make the translation good. The Greek used, to my understanding, does not specify propitiation (i.e. there is no idea of appeasing God's wrath) and hence is better translated as expiation.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

1) I dont know. It seems to me that some Anglicans are the most likely to reunite with the Orthodox than anyone else.

2) I believe that Christians in other traditions will be saved. Its not up to me though. People arent perfect. They make mistakes. God on the other hand is perfect. I would hope that even though some other traditions may not be 100% in line with Orthodoxy that God would still have mercy and show grace to them and save them. Its not like everyone who goes to a Catholic or protestant church is trying to rebel against Orthodoxy. Most are just attending the same Church theyve always attended, worshipping God and trying their best to serve Him.

3) I agree with James that the bold part sounds pretty Orthodox.

I just figured I'd chime in because I was a self described "Anglo Catholic" for a while and I wrestled back in forth with Anglicanism and Catholicism before Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 10:25:58 AM by Timon »

Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

The bolded bit above sounds entirely Orthodox. Has anyone seriously told you otherwise? The thing that would concern me is your use propitiation rather than expiation. The latter is to do with removing sin the former more an offering to God (which does sound somewhat heretical). My own suggestion, and I hope others here will correct me if I err, is that if you stick to expiation and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection defeats death you'll be fine. I'd avoid the term propitiation, however. Despite the fact that some Orthodox rail against everything apparently western (even often when you can the same thing in the east) you shouldn't necessarily take what they say as true. I was one of them about a decade ago (converts sometimes go a bit off the deep end) and I was wrong. Juridical metaphors are fine - it's crystallising those metaphors into dogma such that God becomes some tyrant demanding blood for satisfaction that is wrong (and that's plagued western Christianity).

James

That will prove difficult. See Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 in the King James Version, and add Hebrews 2:17 in the New King James Version.

Not in the slightest. Pointing out to me that Protestant English translations of the Bible use the term is hardly relevant - finding the term in the KJV doesn't make the translation good. The Greek used, to my understanding, does not specify propitiation (i.e. there is no idea of appeasing God's wrath) and hence is better translated as expiation.

James

My apologies. I thought this was a discussion about Continuing Anglicans and the Orthodox Church. You're right. The King James Version and other English translations have no place here.

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

The bolded bit above sounds entirely Orthodox. Has anyone seriously told you otherwise? The thing that would concern me is your use propitiation rather than expiation. The latter is to do with removing sin the former more an offering to God (which does sound somewhat heretical). My own suggestion, and I hope others here will correct me if I err, is that if you stick to expiation and the idea that Christ's death and resurrection defeats death you'll be fine. I'd avoid the term propitiation, however. Despite the fact that some Orthodox rail against everything apparently western (even often when you can the same thing in the east) you shouldn't necessarily take what they say as true. I was one of them about a decade ago (converts sometimes go a bit off the deep end) and I was wrong. Juridical metaphors are fine - it's crystallising those metaphors into dogma such that God becomes some tyrant demanding blood for satisfaction that is wrong (and that's plagued western Christianity).

James

That will prove difficult. See Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 in the King James Version, and add Hebrews 2:17 in the New King James Version.

Not in the slightest. Pointing out to me that Protestant English translations of the Bible use the term is hardly relevant - finding the term in the KJV doesn't make the translation good. The Greek used, to my understanding, does not specify propitiation (i.e. there is no idea of appeasing God's wrath) and hence is better translated as expiation.

James

My apologies. I thought this was a discussion about Continuing Anglicans and the Orthodox Church. You're right. The King James Version and other English translations have no place here.

The point wasn't that those versions have no place here, the point was that it's quite easy to avoid the use of propitiation even if some English translations contain the term. Unless you're claiming that the KJV translation is somehow inerrant and trumps the original Greek, then there is no reason whatsoever, for Anglicans or anyone else, to go along with the term propitiation simply because it's found in the KJV. And as the question I was answering was specifically asking for the Orthodox, not Anglican, view of what the OP had written, the word chosen by the translators of the KJV is even more irrelevant.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

I hope I'm not "putting in my oar" where I shouldn't, as neither Anglican nor Orthodox. Forgive me if I am, and ignore this post. However, I do preach occasionally to a small congregation who meet locally, and who travel also a serious distance to their nearest Church of England (Continuing) congregation. Indeed, I am preaching to them this coming Sunday.

The thing is, if I understand both them and you aright, then the C of E (Continuing) contains a wide spectrum: those who lean towards Orthodoxy via a "High Anglican" position, but also those who are thoroughgoing Protestants (Calvinism, no women preachers, 1662 Prayer Book, etc). I just preach the same as I would anywhere else, which I hope is God's Word, without of course straying into my own denominational distinctives, like believers' baptism (which it would be discourteous to do on the back of their invitiation, and probably counter-productive as well).

The congregation I preach to are ultra-Protestant. It is hard to see how this thread can embrace both such congregations and the type some who have posted here describe.

(I'll just stick to being a Baptist )

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

I hope I'm not "putting in my oar" where I shouldn't, as neither Anglican nor Orthodox. Forgive me if I am, and ignore this post. However, I do preach occasionally to a small congregation who meet locally, and who travel also a serious distance to their nearest Church of England (Continuing) congregation. Indeed, I am preaching to them this coming Sunday.

The thing is, if I understand both them and you aright, then the C of E (Continuing) contains a wide spectrum: those who lean towards Orthodoxy via a "High Anglican" position, but also those who are thoroughgoing Protestants (Calvinism, no women preachers, 1662 Prayer Book, etc). I just preach the same as I would anywhere else, which I hope is God's Word, without of course straying into my own denominational distinctives, like believers' baptism (which it would be discourteous to do on the back of their invitiation, and probably counter-productive as well).

The congregation I preach to are ultra-Protestant. It is hard to see how this thread can embrace both such congregations and the type some who have posted here describe.

(I'll just stick to being a Baptist )

You're correct David, there are some denominations that are Calvinist Protestants. The jurisdiction I'm in, the Province of Christ the King and Anglican Catholic Church, abide by the high church tradition and 7 Ecumenical Councils.

How does the Orthodox Church interpret Romans 5:9 when it states our Lord's blood justifies us and therefore we will be saved from wrath?

I can't speak for my whole Church, but I'd say that because Christ fulfills the need for a righteous man to fill up the iniquities of Israel, the wrath against Israel produced by his [Israel's] estrangement from God is removed. It is this condescension, to enter into Israel as the righteous Man, and to follow him into Death by becoming sin, though sinless, so that the Righteous Man could fill up even death with Himself, that accomplishes the expiation of mankind. The debt is a debt of *righteousness*, not of a need for a suitable punishment victim.

For this reason it was said:

"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

To which Paul contributes: "For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil..."

And

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

"The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me; because YHWH hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound".

How does the Orthodox Church interpret Romans 5:9 when it states our Lord's blood justifies us and therefore we will be saved from wrath?

I can't speak for my whole Church, but I'd say that because Christ fulfills the need for a righteous man to fill up the iniquities of Israel, the wrath against Israel produced by his [Israel's] estrangement from God is removed. It is this condescension, to enter into Israel as the righteous Man, and to follow him into Death by becoming sin, though sinless, so that the Righteous Man could fill up even death with Himself, that accomplishes the expiation of mankind. The debt is a debt of *righteousness*, not of a need for a suitable punishment victim.

For this reason it was said:

"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

To which Paul contributes: "For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil..."

And

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

"The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me; because YHWH hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound".

I recently bought "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Fr. Pomazansky and immediately read over his viewpoint about the atonement. He regularly quotes Holy Scripture and its use of "propitiation" and clearly states Christ was a propitiation for our sins. Where he and the West seem to differ is whether God the Father demanded the sacrifice. From my reading, it appears (as St. Gregory states) it was neither asked for nor demanded by the Father. But to "fulfill all righteousness" Christ willingly took up the cross and bore our sins on it. Christ, as the Sacrifice and as the High Priest accepted Himself (as did the entire Trinity) so that death would be defeated.

Now that the Way is open to Truth and Life, it is our struggle in this life to "take up our cross" and become one with Christ's death so that we might have His Life.

This sounds completely perfect to me and rightfully avoids Anselm's speculation on *how* satisfaction occurred as well as the Reformers speculation in formatting penal substitution as *the* only way the Cross worked. Fr. Pomazansky does an excellent job of continuously weaving the language of propitiation in with the Ransom and Christus Victor model. I believe when us Westerners talk with the Orthodox we are overemphasizing the legal theory and ignoring St. Gregory's advice to keep it a mystery. Additionally, many of us Westerners fail at even seeing the Ransom and Victory language that is essential and must be *woven together* as an unrent garment.

Unfortunately, because the word *satisfaction* immediately conjurs Anselm's theory, I think *some* Orthodox overreact and claim there can't be any satisfaction or even propitiation despite Holy Scripture and Fr. Pomazansky utilizing the language but not falling into excessive theorizing as to what that means. Personally, this is a huge breakthrough for me since many Continuing Anglicans are more prone to say what happened on the Cross is indescribably deep and no one explanation will do it justice. I do realize I am sounding a lot like J.N.D. Kelly's conclusion in his "Early Christian Doctrines."

Propitio is a Latin word used to translate the Greek word "Hilasterion". It has been a vessel for various meanings; that is, the word propitiation has been functionally gutted of any intrinsic meaning because so many people have used it in different ways. Thus, some can use it to mean the Orthodox view of Hilasterion, while others can use it in its original pagan form.

Propitio originally referred to creating a change in a deity, that is, if a deity was offended, you could make an offering to create a change in that deity in order to cause the offense to cease. This is how typical pagan sacrifice worked, allowing one to control or influence the deity in question via the mediation of an over-arching fate deity.

The God of the Hebrews doesn't respond to sacrifice that way. He is not in submission to an over-arching fate deity. Offerings do not force his hand or change him. The original meaning of Propitiation is out. In fact, many have argued that "hilasterion" should not be translated "propitiate", but should be translated "expiate", which refers more clearly to a change in the officiant. Still, the popular word to say is "propitiate" for both the Orthodox meaning and the pagan meaning.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 12:22:57 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

This all broke down in the 1970's because of certain changes, the details of which you know well.

sorry, am not as educated as u think.i was rather tiny in the '70's so i missed it. can u give us a brief explanation?

to the original post:the main problem with the anglican church is that it was founded by an unrepentant wife-murderer for his own convenience.not a good basis for a spiritual enterprise.

i was in the anglican church in britain at the time i became orthodox (actually supported by my priest who had lived in egypt) so i know there are good bits as well (including some good bishops), but i don't see how much longer it can continue, there is too much dry rot.

This all broke down in the 1970's because of certain changes, the details of which you know well.

sorry, am not as educated as u think.i was rather tiny in the '70's so i missed it. can u give us a brief explanation?

to the original post:the main problem with the anglican church is that it was founded by an unrepentant wife-murderer for his own convenience.not a good basis for a spiritual enterprise.

i was in the anglican church in britain at the time i became orthodox (actually supported by my priest who had lived in egypt) so i know there are good bits as well (including some good bishops), but i don't see how much longer it can continue, there is too much dry rot.

Starting in the 70's the Anglican church began 'liberalizing' its ecclesiology and praxis, and accepting variant theological positions.

Also, TAC, wasn't founded by the king, merely made autonomous once more. You Copts have dirtier laundry among popes of Alexandria than that.

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

This part is easy, and will show a stark difference between Protestant and Orthodox thinking:

"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"

This is a Eucharistic statement. Remember that the Orthodox view, the traditional patristic view, is that "justification" is precisely that, being made just or righteous by grace (i.e. communing with God's justice/righteousness--same Greek word BTW), not being "counted as just before the vengeful eye." Since "we have been justified by the blood" in communion, how much moreso shall we be saved from the wrath to come by the same communion being in Him and through Him. For He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. Therefore the prayer in Liturgy, that our partaking be "not unto judgment nor unto condemnation..." and also the prayer "come to make us holy" (alternate translation: come to sanctify us).

I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

In Christ,braish

1. The problem arises more from the Anglican side than from the Protestant2. The Lord decides who will be saved and who will not. That is purpose of Lord telling us that He will put his sheep on the right and the goats on his left. At that moment, every single one of the sheep will be a member in full of His Body the Church, and every goat, even those who were baptized etc. but not true faithful, excluded. 3. Expiation occured at the cross. I am interested to hear where you have heard otherwise. The Liturgy of St. Basil says that He gave Himself as a ransom to Death, whereby we were held, sold under sin.

This all broke down in the 1970's because of certain changes, the details of which you know well.

sorry, am not as educated as u think.i was rather tiny in the '70's so i missed it. can u give us a brief explanation?

to the original post:the main problem with the anglican church is that it was founded by an unrepentant wife-murderer for his own convenience.not a good basis for a spiritual enterprise.

i was in the anglican church in britain at the time i became orthodox (actually supported by my priest who had lived in egypt) so i know there are good bits as well (including some good bishops), but i don't see how much longer it can continue, there is too much dry rot.

Starting in the 70's the Anglican church began 'liberalizing' its ecclesiology and praxis, and accepting variant theological positions.

Also, TAC, wasn't founded by the king, merely made autonomous once more. You Copts have dirtier laundry among popes of Alexandria than that.

When was the English Church ever autonomous?

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

In Christ,braish

1. The problem arises more from the Anglican side than from the Protestant2. The Lord decides who will be saved and who will not. That is purpose of Lord telling us that He will put his sheep on the right and the goats on his left. At that moment, every single one of the sheep will be a member in full of His Body the Church, and every goat, even those who were baptized etc. but not true faithful, excluded. 3. Expiation occured at the cross. I am interested to hear where you have heard otherwise. The Liturgy of St. Basil says that He gave Himself as a ransom to Death, whereby we were held, sold under sin.

On #1. A prominant continuing Anglican priest told me several things about this:a. That many Anglicans cherish being Anglican above all else, "it is what makes us what we are." In this case, it is not throwing off their protestantism that is the problem, it is their Anglicanism. b. That the "Orthodox are not the problem." There are just too many variances, with some being high church, some being evangelical, and some subscribing to the ordination of women. If the continuing Anglicans are going to continue as a group, there is no chance of joining with the Orthodox, as it is only partial orthodoxy that holds them together, but moreso that they are traditional Anglicans (i.e. as a distinctive "denomination" that allows for such variance in faith, but not as much variance as, say, the ECUSA).

I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

In Christ,braish

1. The problem arises more from the Anglican side than from the Protestant2. The Lord decides who will be saved and who will not. That is purpose of Lord telling us that He will put his sheep on the right and the goats on his left. At that moment, every single one of the sheep will be a member in full of His Body the Church, and every goat, even those who were baptized etc. but not true faithful, excluded. 3. Expiation occured at the cross. I am interested to hear where you have heard otherwise. The Liturgy of St. Basil says that He gave Himself as a ransom to Death, whereby we were held, sold under sin.

On number 3, usually from a variety of Orthodox commentators online whether through blogs, boards, or in my case a priest. There seems to be a negative reaction to any hint of Christ offering himself to cleanse us from our sins because of "Western heresy/captivity" etc. I doubted that this was the true view of the Orthodox Church but it gets a lot of "airplay" on the Internet.

I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

In Christ,braish

1. The problem arises more from the Anglican side than from the Protestant2. The Lord decides who will be saved and who will not. That is purpose of Lord telling us that He will put his sheep on the right and the goats on his left. At that moment, every single one of the sheep will be a member in full of His Body the Church, and every goat, even those who were baptized etc. but not true faithful, excluded. 3. Expiation occured at the cross. I am interested to hear where you have heard otherwise. The Liturgy of St. Basil says that He gave Himself as a ransom to Death, whereby we were held, sold under sin.

On #1. A prominant continuing Anglican priest told me several things about this:a. That many Anglicans cherish being Anglican above all else, "it is what makes us what we are." In this case, it is not throwing off their protestantism that is the problem, it is their Anglicanism. b. That the "Orthodox are not the problem." There are just too many variances, with some being high church, some being evangelical, and some subscribing to the ordination of women. If the continuing Anglicans are going to continue as a group, there is no chance of joining with the Orthodox, as it is only partial orthodoxy that holds them together, but moreso that they are traditional Anglicans (i.e. as a distinctive "denomination" that allows for such variance in faith, but not as much variance as, say, the ECUSA).

My question 1 is focused on Continuing Anglicans. Only one Continuing curch is low/evangelical in nature and none of us ordain women. That is the very reason why we were forced to leave the Episcopalian Church and ultimately the Anglican Communion when the Church of England accepted women's ordination in the 90's. The Anglican Catholic Church and Anglican Province of Christ the King is not in communion with the one low/evangelical Continuing church.

The ACC and APCK are both high church Anglo-Catholic that accept all 7 Ecumenical Councils without qualifications. I'm curious as to what we would need to do in the eyes of the Orthodox in order to reestablish communion?

I know the Filioque is one issue but beyond that, when I read Orthodox beliefs and practices I don't see how we couldn't establish communion?

I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

In Christ,braish

1. The problem arises more from the Anglican side than from the Protestant2. The Lord decides who will be saved and who will not. That is purpose of Lord telling us that He will put his sheep on the right and the goats on his left. At that moment, every single one of the sheep will be a member in full of His Body the Church, and every goat, even those who were baptized etc. but not true faithful, excluded. 3. Expiation occured at the cross. I am interested to hear where you have heard otherwise. The Liturgy of St. Basil says that He gave Himself as a ransom to Death, whereby we were held, sold under sin.

On #1. A prominant continuing Anglican priest told me several things about this:a. That many Anglicans cherish being Anglican above all else, "it is what makes us what we are." In this case, it is not throwing off their protestantism that is the problem, it is their Anglicanism. b. That the "Orthodox are not the problem." There are just too many variances, with some being high church, some being evangelical, and some subscribing to the ordination of women. If the continuing Anglicans are going to continue as a group, there is no chance of joining with the Orthodox, as it is only partial orthodoxy that holds them together, but moreso that they are traditional Anglicans (i.e. as a distinctive "denomination" that allows for such variance in faith, but not as much variance as, say, the ECUSA).

My question 1 is focused on Continuing Anglicans. Only one Continuing curch is low/evangelical in nature and none of us ordain women. That is the very reason why we were forced to leave the Episcopalian Church and ultimately the Anglican Communion when the Church of England accepted women's ordination in the 90's. The Anglican Catholic Church and Anglican Province of Christ the King is not in communion with the one low/evangelical Continuing church.

The ACC and APCK are both high church Anglo-Catholic that accept all 7 Ecumenical Councils without qualifications. I'm curious as to what we would need to do in the eyes of the Orthodox in order to reestablish communion?

I know the Filioque is one issue but beyond that, when I read Orthodox beliefs and practices I don't see how we couldn't establish communion?

Understood. The hierarchy of the ACC and APCK need to approach an Orthodox synod over the matter. That is the thing that is first and foremost lacking in the matter at this point. I know that Met. Jonah reached out to the Anglicans some time ago. It seemed they were not interested. In such a meeting they would determine and detail the points of being brought into communion. Is there some sort of statement of belief that the ACC and APCK has that I could look at and give you a better answer on doctrinal points?

I have tried searching for the answer to several questions through books, this forum, etc. but to no avail. Please forgive me if I'm asking repetitive questions. I'm going to start with a little background on my way of thinking so you can see where I'm coming from. In case you don't know, I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church that rejected the apostasy of the Episcopal Church in women and homosexual ordination.

1) Anglicans are inadvertent "protestants" in the sense that we inherited the falsities of Middle Age Romanism (purgatory, papal infallibility, papal supremacy). When the Reformation occurred, our Anglican forefathers left Romes errors in an effort to return to pre-schism Orthodoxy that was present in Britain. I admit that as Anglicans we need to correct the Filioque error that we inherited, but what else would have to change before the Orthodox would be willing to discuss reunion with Continuing Anglicans?

2) My next question is in regards to salvation. The Romans now agree that the Lord's grace is present in other churches since Vatican II. The typical Orthodox response I see is St. Cyprian's statement that nothing is valid outside the Church- which is interpreted as Orthodox only. The other Orthodox response I've read is that no one knows where the Spirit goes and the Orthodox cannot judge those outside the Church but the Lord will. So my question is how does the Orthodox Church view the salvation of Romans vs. Continuing Anglicans vs. non-sacramental protestants?

3) Finally, my last question deals with the age-old justification debate. I fully agree with my Orthodox brethren that our Lord was not tortured for the Father's pleasing. But I disagree with those who say there was no propitiation/expiation that occurred on the Cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). There was propitiation/expiation but not to eliminate the Father's punishment but to destroy "death by death" and allow at-one-ment and reconciliation. Perhaps this is Orthodox but I have read so many Orthodox believers who rail against any notion of propitiation/expiation as "Western-Augustine-legalistic" heresy despite the language being present in Holy Scripture. I guess my question here is: help?

Thank you ahead of time for your response and understanding. My whole being burns with a desire that Continuing Anglicans and Orthodoxy unite since we formally declare adherence to all Seven Ecumenical Councils without qualification. I firmly believe we can add to the conversation of what an American Orthodox Church is to look like. I pray my statements come across as a seeker of unity but not compromising ecumenism.

In Christ,braish

1. The problem arises more from the Anglican side than from the Protestant2. The Lord decides who will be saved and who will not. That is purpose of Lord telling us that He will put his sheep on the right and the goats on his left. At that moment, every single one of the sheep will be a member in full of His Body the Church, and every goat, even those who were baptized etc. but not true faithful, excluded. 3. Expiation occured at the cross. I am interested to hear where you have heard otherwise. The Liturgy of St. Basil says that He gave Himself as a ransom to Death, whereby we were held, sold under sin.

On #1. A prominant continuing Anglican priest told me several things about this:a. That many Anglicans cherish being Anglican above all else, "it is what makes us what we are." In this case, it is not throwing off their protestantism that is the problem, it is their Anglicanism. b. That the "Orthodox are not the problem." There are just too many variances, with some being high church, some being evangelical, and some subscribing to the ordination of women. If the continuing Anglicans are going to continue as a group, there is no chance of joining with the Orthodox, as it is only partial orthodoxy that holds them together, but moreso that they are traditional Anglicans (i.e. as a distinctive "denomination" that allows for such variance in faith, but not as much variance as, say, the ECUSA).

My question 1 is focused on Continuing Anglicans. Only one Continuing curch is low/evangelical in nature and none of us ordain women. That is the very reason why we were forced to leave the Episcopalian Church and ultimately the Anglican Communion when the Church of England accepted women's ordination in the 90's. The Anglican Catholic Church and Anglican Province of Christ the King is not in communion with the one low/evangelical Continuing church.

The ACC and APCK are both high church Anglo-Catholic that accept all 7 Ecumenical Councils without qualifications. I'm curious as to what we would need to do in the eyes of the Orthodox in order to reestablish communion?

I know the Filioque is one issue but beyond that, when I read Orthodox beliefs and practices I don't see how we couldn't establish communion?

Understood. The hierarchy of the ACC and APCK need to approach an Orthodox synod over the matter. That is the thing that is first and foremost lacking in the matter at this point. I know that Met. Jonah reached out to the Anglicans some time ago. It seemed they were not interested. In such a meeting they would determine and detail the points of being brought into communion. Is there some sort of statement of belief that the ACC and APCK has that I could look at and give you a better answer on doctrinal points?

Yes, Met. Jonah, Lord bless him, reached out to the Anglican Church of North America who formed in reaction to the ordination of openly homosexual Gene Robinson. Unfortunately, the ACNA do allow women's ordination and Met. Jonah request that they return to the faith in that matter. But praise God for his moves towards conservative Anglicans in general.

Ok, so from the Affirmation from St. Louis, the following is not going to work:

Quote

Unity with Other Believers We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who "worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity," and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.

Reason: minimalist requirements and still adheres to branch theory

Quote

III. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES In the constitutional revision which must be undertaken, we recommend, for the consideration of continuing Anglicans, the following: Retain the Best of Both Provinces That the traditional and tested features of the Canadian and American ecclesiastical systems be retained and used in the administration of the continuing Church. Selection of Bishops That a non-political means for selection of bishops be devised. Tripartite Synod That the Church be generally governed by a Holy Synod of three branches (episcopal, clerical and lay), under the presidency of the Primate of the Church.

Reason: polity of a synod. Unless under civil political duress (like under Peter the not-so-great) of a whole autocephalous church, such dispensation would not be given for such a structure.

Quote

IV. PRINCIPLES OF WORSHIP Prayer Book--The Standard of Worship In the continuing Anglican Church, the Book of Common Prayer is (and remains) one work in two editions: The Canadian Book of 1962 and the American Book of 1928. Each is fully and equally authoritative. No other standard for worship exists.

Obvious reasons, although the Tikhonite revision of BCP is utilized in the Orthodox Church within certain jurisdictions.

Ok, so from the Affirmation from St. Louis, the following is not going to work:

Quote

Unity with Other Believers We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who "worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity," and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.

I've never been Anglican, but I can tell you that when we Catholics say things like the above, it's "minimalist" only in the sense that we practice ecumenism towards just about anyone.